Analytic a posteriori knowledge exists in philosophy

the verdict

SUPPORTED

the evidence backs this

Recorded sources

2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that analytic a posteriori knowledge exists in philosophy?

Yes. Philosophical literature and specialized epistemological studies explicitly discuss and define categories of knowledge such as analytic a posteriori knowledge.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked 4 Aug 2026

The analysis

The claim concerns a specific philosophical categorization (analytic a posteriori knowledge). Papers [2] and [7] directly address these epistemological distinctions, with [2] explicitly listing 'analytic a posteriori knowledge' among defined knowledge types in its framework. None of the retrieved papers refute the existence of such knowledge; they either discuss philosophical distinctions or focus on unrelated scientific and computational topics.

Evidence for · 2

Fundamental Issues of Concept Mapping Relevant to Discipline-Based Education: A Perspective of Manufacturing Engineering

2019

Get citation

Ullah, A. (2019). Fundamental Issues of Concept Mapping Relevant to Discipline-Based Education: A Perspective of Manufacturing Engineering. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030228

See more details

More for · 1

Analytic–Synthetic and A Priori–A Posteriori History

2016

Get citation

Weatherson, B. (2016). Analytic–Synthetic and A Priori–A Posteriori History. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668779.013.24

Related receipts

Is it true that analytic philosophy is reducible to the philosophy of language? CONTESTED related question, same topic
Is it true that a priori knowledge is categorized into analytic and synthetic types? SUPPORTED related question, same topic
Is it true that a distinct tradition of African philosophy exists? SUPPORTED related question, same topic

Receipt History

first checked04 Aug 2026

judged → SUPPORTED · 8204 Aug 2026

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.

Check your own claim

Challenge the receipt

I have a source that contradicts this verdict I have a source that supports it No source: request a receipt review Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work